It's an outrage that the FA got all pissy about taking a harmless photo on a plane. Unfortunately the use of the t-word probably ruined the situation, but the FA's initial behaviour was out of line. The guy should try filling out the complaint at http://www.untied.com/

Quoting psa188 (Thread starter):It's an outrage that the FA got all pissy about taking a harmless photo on a plane.

In my opinion, he really pushed it using the t-word when attempting to offer his business card and explanation to the FA later. Sometimes you need to know when to drop it, and realize you aren't going to make a bad situation any better.

I haven't been all that impressed with the blogger in question anyway, so I'll leave my comments there. There's a rather long thread on FT about the blog post, too.

UA crews do have a little attitude. Ive noticed it too fairly well when I used to work in BOM airport. Its a hit or miss. Sometimes you get extreme good crew, sometimes you get husbands who fought with their wives and have come onboard

Nevertheless, UA owes him a big apology, and I guess UA can be sued for that?

The UA policy is contradictory and, thusly, stupid. UA maintains a Facebook, Instagram, and twitter page in which customers are encouraged to share photos of their UA travel experience. Now how does that square with thei posted policy in their magazine, which by the way no,one ever reads. If this were such an important policy, then why aren't any announcements ever made reminding pax about the no photo rule?

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 2):In my opinion, he really pushed it using the t-word when attempting to offer his business card and explanation to the FA later. Sometimes you need to know when to drop it, and realize you aren't going to make a bad situation any better.

The flight attendant was definitely overreacting (especially considering the negative publicity that this will get for UA), but the passenger ended up digging his own grave by blurting out "terrorist" on a flight to the Middle East area.

I'm with the blogger. He's an elite status high value customer.
This FA is probably just shitty he called her out on her actions, then embarrassed (obviously by running away,
if she firmly believed she was in the right she wouldn't have felt the need to hide) by her obvious over reaction.

This kind of thing shouldn't be tolerated. This is the exact kind of customer any company wants to retain. A
high value one that is also a high repeat customer. Now after this experience, lets say the guy decides to fly
on a long flight up the front on a carrier like Etihad, Emirates, singapore or even Thai? It ain't rocket science to
know what happens next. United permanently loses the customer where there is a choice. It's staff like this, who have forgotten that these people pay their wages ultimately, that are the dead wood in the system.

Now he should not have used the T word, that was a stupid move, that aside, it just shows how Americans have become scared of their own shadow, it's really quite sad this once great nation now views every move by others as something potentially dangerous.

As soon as you mention the word terrorist and the Captain will probably trust his flight crew more than a frequent flier, he kind of dug his own grave as soon as he mentioned that. A flight attendant on UA responded to his posting and mentioned how pre-flight that the crew is strained due to preparation for departure. It probably would have been best to deal with the incident after arrival in Istanbul. Just my 2 cents.

Isn't it ridiculous that you cannot even mention the word 'terrorist' anymore? I certainly think so. Come on, it's not like(according to his statement) he was yelling about terrorism and bombs throughout the aircraft. From what I can read he quietly explained the situation and his reasons for taking photos on board. I don't think I would've even cared about the use of that particular word in that context. Given, we only have his side of the story right now. Would be interesting to hear from fellow passengers or crew - the latter which is highly unlikely.

Quoting AS739BSI (Reply 9):that the crew is strained due to preparation for departure.

They're strained simply by doing the job that they are trained and paid for? What a pathetic excuse. The FA could simply have said, "I'll come back after take off and we can talk about it then." If the blogger's version of events are correct and the FA did lie, that can not be justified by being a bit flustered because you have to check the overhead lockers are shut and someone's iPhone is off.

And even if he did use the word terrorist, does your average terrorist say, "I am a terrorist: here is my business card."? Simply training crew to react to certain words taken out of context is stupid. Listen to the whole sentence and it becomes clear that a person isn't a threat. No, if the blogger's version is true, this is yet another example of the abuse of power by someone who doesn't like to be questioned.

Someone once remarked that the problem with common sense is that it isn't all that common. The blogger showed a lack of sense in choosing to discuss the matter at that point pre departure. The FA showed it by choosing to escalate rather than defuse.

After living in the US for over 20 years I've come to realize and accept that there is a huge book of words one should not use. Ironic being the land of the free and freedom of speech. Far from. This is another example of a senior dinosaur FA using pity power holding techniques.

Quoting toobz (Reply 13):
After living in the US for over 20 years I've come to realize and accept that there is a huge book of words one should not use. Ironic being the land of the free and freedom of speech. Far from. This is another example of a senior dinosaur FA using pity power holding techniques.

I thought about it, so what if he used the word terrorist. He didn't make a joke he was explaining himself. I think that he went out of his way to ensure that his actions WOULD'T be misconstrued by pulling her to the side after the initial confrontation.

Flight Attendants don't want to dance with you or have conversations with you, they want you to sit down, shut up and do what they tell you to do. It's been like this since 9/11. AA can be just as brutal as UA is in this regard.

Fascinating how many fellow passengers have come forward in the comments' section of his blog, including the other guy who got a dressing down for taking a picture. While I took the report by the guy himself with a pinch of salt, the comments by fellow passengers seem to corroborate the story.

Honestly, FAs who feel that their main task is policing the aircraft by citing non-existing regulation and overinterpreting the company's T&C hidden somemwhere in the small print of the in-flight magazine (how about non-English speaking passengers, by the way?) have missed their job and they should consider working as a deputy with the local sheriff rather than in a customer service function. Yes, they are there for the safety of the plane, but this task should be understood as part of their job as a customer service representative. All too often nowadays rude and unprofessional behavior and the lack of common sense is excused with the "security" / "9/11" mantra. Quite honestly, if FAs are still so traumatized about 9/11 that they kick into full SWAT mode when the t-word is used in a completely inncoent context, they should better do a desk job on the ground.

Completely unacceptable. It doesn't matter if any "buzzword" was used by the passenger. He was trying to explain himself and establish a rapport with the crew. Busy or not with pre-take off activities, the FAs are first and foremost in a service position and need to conduct themselves with professionalism and honesty.

Personally, my view is that once they knew about the photos and the blog, they just didn't want to deal with the guy anymore. When you know that your lazy and apathetic service is going to be documented for the world to see, wouldn't you want to get rid of the "problem" too?!

Quoting type-rated (Reply 17):Flight Attendants don't want to dance with you or have conversations with you, they want you to sit down, shut up and do what they tell you to do. It's been like this since 9/11. AA can be just as brutal as UA is in this regard.

Then they lose their customers...i want a dance with f/a's and i'll go to singapore, thai for that

I could understand not allowing pictures without permission of anywhere near the cockpit area or of crew members for security reasons (UA lost 2 planes in 9/11) and not taking pictures when electronic items cannot be used during flight. F/A's and other crew may want no pictures for personal security and privacy reasons. UA may also have this ban to prevent the collection of proprietary information for use by competitors in the way they have their planes set up and as to security procedures. Also banning pictures prevents 'evidence' of alleged bad service, annoying other pax with camera flashes and those that want privacy, not wanting their picture taken without their permission.

Yes, it may be a stupid rule and could use some reasonable revision, I am quite sure many take pictures without any hassle or discipline by the F/A's, but some may see the policy as so absolute and their job to be strict as to it to keep their jobs, looking like a hero to their bosses.

They can make rules as much as they like, these rules have to hold up with common law. There was a similar issue in Traons Magazine a couple of months ago about cops approaching train watchers and trying to forbid them making pictures. They have no legal reason, all it needs is politely (and stay polite) ask the officer "what have I done wrong".

Of course no one can take pictures of other persons but a simple seat? Totally unreasonable even to mention.

The FA was extremely rude and power-tripping. (Probably had a bad attitude too.) I'll agree that saying the word "terrorist" in any context won't go over well, considering how paranoid some people who work in aviation are. Then the FA went to run and hide like a coward, after being rude to a passenger, really? Shameful.

As for the captain. Seriously? I understand taking the word of your crew, but threatening a passenger with "calling the police" and "don't make it worse for yourself" is over the top when he just wanted to explain himself. It's not that the captain cared anyway, he already made his mind up, but still.

This is incredibly bad customer service. I would have left them both with a piece of my mind.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 24):
Of course no one can take pictures of other persons but a simple seat? Totally unreasonable even to mention.

I would say technically they can as it is their property and you are inside their aircraft, so they are exercising property rights (different story if you are taking pictures from someone else's property while out in the public). But once they did, the guy complied.

Quoting EWRCabincrew (Reply 27):Just remember there are three sides to any story. Your side, their side and the truth.

As I mentioned earlier, in the comment's section of the blog a handful of fellow passengers have come forward who describe how the drama unfolded from their point of view. They all support that guys's story and all but one say the FA's behaviour was way over the top (only of one witnesses - while agreeing with the description of the situation - said the blogger should better have shut up instead of trying to talk to the FA).

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 28):I would say technically they can as it is their property and you are inside their aircraft

the difference to a chemical plant for instance is, that they are a common carrier and you have paid for a ticket and are legally on board. Taking a picture is common practise for travellers documenting their journey. We have numerous examples under trip reports on this site.

My example with Trains was the same issue, a platform is the property of the transit authority or the railroad. As long as it is public access they cannot deny you taking pictures. It is a constitutional right in the US.

As a current Widebody Captain, I feel compelled to participate in this topic.

1) There is NO SUCH THING as words that are forbidden to be told inside an aircraft. You can say bomb, terrorist whatever, as long as you do not claim to be one or have one with you etc.

2) There is NO SUCH THING as forbidding a normal passenger to make a picture of his seat or the aircraft. it might be mentioned somewhere in a magazine, but I do not care, as Captain I, and I do think nearly ALL of my colleguesmwould never disembark a passenger formtakingma picture.

3) I DO kick people out for being rude or agressive to the crew. No exceptions made.

By the way, please stop using this ridiculousm "t-word" it is terrorist .

The decision was made by the aircraft captain - that's what he's paid to do - but seems to have been made having denied the complainant parity of input into the decision process.
Flight crew, whether "up front" or in the cabin are there for a purpose and as passengers we are obliged to follow their instructions when they impinge on the safety of the aircraft or other passengers, not because they make an unbalanced assessment of the activity of a passenger and then hide under the guise of security/safety/breach of the fine print.
We don't give up our rights as humans when we pay for an airline ticket and board the craft, nor do flight crew assume omnipotent status within that aluminium hull!

You surrender certain "rights" when you board the airplane. You have agreed to follow all instructions given by the flight crew, no matter how silly or arbitrary they may seem. And no, I won't show you where it says blah-blah in my manual. Manuals are sensitive documents and are not for consumption by anyone other than an authorized company employee.

IFUA has a "no photography" rule then abide by it. We have had flight attendants murdered, stalked, raped, their families harrassed, cars burned and a mess of other problems so no, we would prefer NOT to be photographed unless my company requests it for their own use. Here's a hint--that name on my chest may or may not be my real name. The airline knows who is working on the flight. If you don't like the rule complain in an adult manner--directly to the company. The flight attendant didn't make the rule but she/he does have to enforce it. Doesn't mean we agree with or like it but we are held responsible if we let it slide.

Many airports around the world will not permit photography even for airline geeks like us who just like airplanes.

Make life easy for yourself and just follow the rules.

Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90

If an airline is going to have a policy like this it should be plainly worded and understandable and not conflict with itself (you can photograph a "personal event", whatever that is), and be made clear to all passengers PRIOR to boarding (Not just in back of the on-line magazine, which often is never looked at and is not required reading nor is it part of the safety briefing). And it should be applied professionally and without discrimination. United did none of that here. If this went to a court, they would throw it out as a joke.

To assume that because someone is a frequent flyer they know the policy is ludicrous. And to throw off one person for violating it and not another who is also doing it just makes it worse. Also, the person did comply with the request to stop taking pictures. And they still throw him off.

I do agree about the passenger not using the actual word "terrorist" in this day and age. But still, he used it in a reasonable context in a non-threatening manner .The flight attendant over reacted. To have someone removed from a flight, especially one that is so long and is difficult to reroute for the passenger, it should be for behavior that is distinctly disruptive or threatening to the crew or other passengers. That wasn't the case here.

I personally think he was only guilty of maybe being a bit obnoxious by going back to the flight attendant and trying to tell her who he was, but so what. He was still in compliance with their policy once he was notified to stop taking pictures.

Ignorantia juris non excusat- it is the general rule in the United States and most countries in Europe. Indeed, in this case, this is not a legal issue persay, but a policy dispute, and in a service business a company is more apt to be flexible. But just because you didn't know the policy, law, or regulation, does not always mean it is does not apply to you. That's been the basis of society in most Western countries since Roman times. We would live in chaos if it were not, as claimed ignorance of the policy, law, or regulation would excuse almost any behavior.

Now in regard to this thread, remarkably, almost no one has questioned the validity of this account, at least those who have replied to it. Someone posts an alleged incident on a blog, posts a link on here, and it is taken as the truth of the situation where the said employees are guilty until proven innocent. There are two sides to all stories and we have only been exposed to one side of an alleged incident. With technology today where anyone can post almost anything, it's prudent to really filter what you read and consider the source.

Let's just lastly go through United's photo policy. They do allow photos of "personal events" so if I am on my honeymoon to Bermuda, and ask the FA to take a picture of me and my new wife clinking champagne glasses sitting in First, that's covered. Pictures like this happen all the time. Then the next part, where they say you cannot take pictures of video of other passengers without their consent. Makes perfect sense. It's a privacy issue. Then they ban photos or video of employees, equipment, and procedures. Again, a privacy issue for employees, and a safety issue for the airline. This is not out of the ordinary and most companies do not allow customers to film their employees or procedures without consent. Then the last part, where you can not transmit the photo or video while on the flight. Again, nothing out of the ordinary there.

Bottom line, you can take photos on-board United Airlines flights. The key is to get permission. Next time, I would inform the crew of my intentions, and ask for the Captain's permission to take a photo if it is not of a personal nature.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 28):
As I mentioned earlier, in the comment's section of the blog a handful of fellow passengers have come forward who describe how the drama unfolded from their point of view. They all support that guys's story and all but one say the FA's behaviour was way over the top (only of one witnesses - while agreeing with the description of the situation - said the blogger should better have shut up instead of trying to talk to the FA).

But you have to be careful with that. All of those commentators seemed to be friends (I don't find it to be a coincidence that all the commentators who were on the flight seemed to be in row 18) and frankly we have no clue if they were actually on the plane, their relationship to the blogger (he said he was upgraded, I wonder if he was originally suppose to be seated in row 18 ) or wanting to seem like they were in the know.

Quoting ba319-131 (Reply 8):Now he should not have used the T word, that was a stupid move, that aside, it just shows how Americans have become scared of their own shadow, it's really quite sad this once great nation now views every move by others as something potentially dangerous.

You are mixing up things here - "Ignorantia juris non excusat" or "nemo censetur ignorare legem" as a legal principle dealing with the ignorance of the law relates to "leges" or "iuris", not to airline policies or terms & conditions. A law promulgated by a democratically elected rule-making body is totally different from a rule or a "policy" set up by a private person such as an airline. All this guy violated was a little note hidden somewhere in the in-flight magazine - and once notified of it, he stopped taking pictures. We could discuss if he was in breach of contract if the T&C of UA have a "no photo" clause somewhere with which he - unknowingly - agreed when booking the ticket, but apparently this is not the case. The "no photo" stuff is in their in-flight magazine no one is required to read. And even if you would read it, the wording is so vague that a court of law would find it difficult to justify action taken by UA based on that. Plus, then there is the legal concept of "non concedit venire contra factum proprium" - UA invites people to share their travel experiences with the public by uploading travel pictures.

As we are just at it: Even it the guy violated a law (again: which he did not), "ignorantia juris non excusat" has been limited by the US Supreme Court in Lambert vs. California. In order to be punished, there must be a probability that the accused party had knowledge of the law before committing the crime.

Bottom line for me is: UA is selling a service. The customers are paying the wages of the employees and keep the company afloat. Employees therefore should treat customers respectfully. The guy did nothing. He took a picture of his seat, was told to stop it and complied despite the blatant idiocy of the rule. He tried to explain and got booted off the flight, only to be accommodated by a UA ground agent on the next available connection. The action taken by the flight crew was uncalled for and the treatment of the customer was disrespectful. Nobody denies that the crew had the powers to do what they did. But if they exercise their powers, it does not automatically mean that they are right.

Okay, here's my issue with the whole use of the word terrorist. No one that actually is what X organization or Y government considers a terrorist is going to think of them selves as a terrorist, they're going to think of them selves as a person fighting for Z cause. I don't think, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong here, that any terrorist has ever actually identified themselves as a terrorist. So the fact that that word instantly sets off a red light in the mind of a flight attendant is absurd.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 34):IFUA has a "no photography" rule then abide by it. We have had flight attendants murdered, stalked, raped, their

taking pictures of people, regardless if crew or passengers, can be with their consent only. This here was taking pictures of a seat.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 34):You surrender certain "rights" when you board the airplane. You have agreed to follow all instructions given by the flight crew, no matter how silly or arbitrary they may seem.

I love this #1 No, you have agreed to the conditions of carriage which must be in line with common law. In your words, i would have to follow the instructions of a FA if he or she tells me to bark like a dog.

I love this #2. This is my all time favorite, from the land of the free. We have fought through wars here in Europe to become the free society we are. Some people may be privileged, but a basic human right of moving around freely can never be a privilege. You pay for a ticket and you have the right to fly. The carrier must honor your ticket and he must compensate you if he cannot deliver the product, i.,e. your flight is delayed. That is a privilege you enjoy in states ruled by the law and not by company regulations.

Besides that, "privileges" are relics of feudal states, police states or other sorts of dictatorships.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 34):You surrender certain "rights" when you board the airplane. You have agreed to follow all instructions given by the flight crew, no matter how silly or arbitrary they may seem. And no, I won't show you where it says blah-blah in my manual. Manuals are sensitive documents and are not for consumption by anyone other than an authorized company employee.

Right, so this justifies bad service, and attitude to premium passengers who are the backbone of the company's revenue and ultimately pay your wages. What planet are you on? This sounds like an attitude from the soviet era Aeroflot! And you wonder why regular american travellers abandon US carriers for the likes of Emirates thai BA and Qantas like they are going out of fashion. Come on... its a service job... a service industry. Imagine if say, if a hotel chain like the four seasons took that attitude. If this woman worked for me...and I found out about this, she'd be fired. If I couldn't fire her, she's be reassigned a job cleaning toilets in the terminal. And before you ask, I've been on the front line with the public and I know what they can be like. This is no excuse.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 40): A law promulgated by a democratically elected rule-making body is totally different from a rule or a "policy" set up by a private person such as an airline.

I would encourage you to read my full post.

Quoting Rising (Reply 36):Indeed, in this case, this is not a legal issue persay, but a policy dispute, and in a service business a company is more apt to be flexible.

In regard to:

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 40):All this guy violated was a little note hidden somewhere in the in-flight magazine - and once notified of it, he stopped taking pictures.

Respectfully, again, I would encourage you to read my full post.

Quoting Rising (Reply 36):There are two sides to all stories and we have only been exposed to one side of an alleged incident. With technology today where anyone can post almost anything, it's prudent to really filter what you read and consider the source.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 44):I love this #2. This is my all time favorite, from the land of the free. We have fought through wars here in Europe to become the free society we are. Some people may be privileged, but a basic human right of moving around freely can never be a privilege. You pay for a ticket and you have the right to fly. The carrier must honor your ticket and he must compensate you if he cannot deliver the product, i.,e. your flight is delayed. That is a privilege you enjoy in states ruled by the law and not by company regulations.

Besides that, "privileges" are relics of feudal states, police states or other sorts of dictatorships.

Spot on! this attitude stinks! it forgets these people are CUSTOMERS and they are PAYING for a product!

You guys are aviation experts on here...you know what aviation has been through in the last decade.

This isn't 1999 or 1989...it is the world in 2013.

You shouldn't be taking pictures of airplanes while in flight. You are going to arise suspicion. And if you say, "I have a right," that is fine...but if you get the wrong crew and they feel that you are a threat or even a question, they will remove you.

Quoting Rising (Reply 46):Quoting vfw614 (Reply 40):
A law promulgated by a democratically elected rule-making body is totally different from a rule or a "policy" set up by a private person such as an airline.

I would encourage you to read my full post.

I did. Please explain someone who holds a law degree and is licenced to practice law what the legal principle of "ignorantia juris non excusat" has to do with the case. It has nothing - and as you apparently agree, why do you mention it? You are really cracking a nut with a sledgehammer by doing so. The whole story is a customer service issue, not a legal issue. And we should discuss the customer service aspect.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 24):They can make rules as much as they like, these rules have to hold up with common law.

Well they can't make a rule that is flat out illegal but they certainly don't have to allow constitutional rights, or apply rules that specifically relate to the citizen - government relationship (free speech etc) on their property.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 30):As long as it is public access they cannot deny you taking pictures. It is a constitutional right in the US.

No it isn't, as the inside of an aircraft is not a public place. It is not a constitutional right to take pictures inside an aircraft.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 40):A law promulgated by a democratically elected rule-making body is totally different from a rule or a "policy" set up by a private person such as an airline.

It is a norm in USA nowadays. Corporations are above everyone else. I know you refered a case from 1957, those were different times, if the same case goes in front of USSC ruling will be different. Best example before SOX and electronic media retention laws came into existence forcing companies to keep e-mail, US corporations used to have a policy not to store e-mails for more than few days so that no one could subpoena. It was intentional but perfectly legal.

In this case almost all States in US allow still photography and Video(without audio) with single party consent, there are severe restrictions on audio recordings in several states.

My question is, what if all this had happened after the flight had departed? Would they have made a diversionary landing? Somehow I think not. I wonder if the FA might have been a bit less 'excitable' knowing the threat to remove the passenger was no longer an option?

I have to say that I don't fly massively, but in the flights I do make (several a year), I have yet to see anyone ever get in trouble for taking pictures, either of the inside of the cabin or out the window. And I've seen many people doing it. But then I've only ever flown on a US based airline once.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 48):Many of you do not know that rights are waived when you choose to fly. You make that decision with your own free will.

Just an example. A curse word...you have every right to say that with free speech in the USA. On an airplane, it is considered a Level 1 Threat...and you can be escorted off for saying it.

As for photos: no one can take a photo of a crewmember performing his/her duties. That is a regulation. It is also vague enough to cover or not cover many things

Once again the attitude stinks. Nowhere did it say this guy was causing trouble. quite the opposite this guy is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to the company, who's lifetime spend will be in the millions. And you might think people's rights are waived but a court would think very differently. Take note of the 'entrapment' cases where people have been stuck on the tarmac for hours in bad weather for example. This attitude, is one more like prison wardens than someone in a customer service role. And you all wonder why people would rather fly Emirates. Ain't it obvious?

Yes, the flight attendant's reaction was probably not in proportion to the infraction committed (if any) or the threat posed. Regardless, most Captains I know will mention something in their briefings about booting problem pax if any of the F/As feel uncomfortable. In these cases, Captains have a great deal of discretion, but by the same token, they are not on board to mediate disputes. My experience is that Captains will defer to the assessment of the cabin crew and won't hesitate to remove passengers under such circumstances. "When in doubt, throw 'em out."

The other thing that a lot of frequent flyers don't realize is that crewmembers (especially at United) often view with great derision those who flaunt elite status as though it entitles them to a higher level of service. Worse still are those who demand it on that basis. I do not think making note of his status helped the situation at all.

Of course, none of the foregoing is meant to be a defense of the airline. It's simply an appraisal of the reality of domestic air travel in 2013. I wasn't there, but I have to imagine that, based on the outcome, the passenger could have handled the situation in a much more savvy manner.

Elite status and high value are not always synonymous, especially in this particular instance. I hate to sling mud, but I've read his blog before, and it is exceptionally likely that the cost of his benefits far outweighs the revenue he brings to United.

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 55):I've read his blog before, and it is exceptionally likely that the cost of his benefits far outweighs the revenue he brings to United.

Maybe it was an elaborate set-up to get rid of him for good then if this guy is costing UA money and exposing them to unwanted publicity in his blog "Great, finally this red-flagged pain in the neck is booked to Istanbul. Let's upgrade this obnoxious bugger so that he cannot resist to take a picture of the new seats for is bl***y blog and then confront him to trigger a reaction so that we can throw him out and he will pester Delta or American in the future"

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 18):q
Fascinating how many fellow passengers have come forward in the comments' section of his blog, including the other guy who got a dressing down for taking a picture. While I took the report by the guy himself with a pinch of salt, the comments by fellow passengers seem to corroborate the story.

It seemed very, very odd to me that his fellow passengers found his blog and then left comments corroborating his side of the story. This definitely threw up a red flag for me, as I find it very hard to believe that fellow passengers would have thought enough of this situation to get on the Internet, do a search, find this blog, and then comment. So I'm left with the conclusion that either A) Those comments are not from other fellow passengers or B) He was trying to corral fellow passengers into his "camp" and had handed out at least several business cards and was already making a scene before asking the FA to come back to his seat so he could explain why he was snapping pictures.

"He waited his whole damn life to take that flight. And as the plane crashed down he thought 'Well isn't this nice...'"

Personally, as a F/A, I will only ask a passenger to stop taking photos if it is clear obvious will be in the picture or video or if their behaviour is strange filming aircraft equipment. I do not agree with those who are filming other people´s faces in the cabin without their consent but I leave it to those involved to ask them to stop and say no.
The irony is some people post photos of F/A who are not aware of being photographed or filmed, howver they never show their own photo or real name in their trip reports

Some Cabin Crew and some flightcrew on US airlines are not only paranoia, they lack common sense, so much needed in this profession. this is one case it seems where common sense was thrown overboard .
And please kids, call a Terrorist a Terrorist, stop,the T- wording. We are not in kindergarten.

Quoting BC77008 (Reply 58): A) Those comments are not from other fellow passengers or B) He was trying to corral fellow passengers into his "camp" and had handed out at least several business cards and was already making a scene before asking the FA to come back to his seat so he could explain why he was snapping pictures.

I would not read too much into this. There is also one fellow traveller who is criticizing the guy for not shutting up. In all fairness, if you keep a cool head in a situation like this, it is the best thing to do to get contacts of some witnesses as otherwise it will later always be you against a dozen or so flight crew with their story.

Quoting BC77008 (Reply 58):It seemed very, very odd to me that his fellow passengers found his blog and then left comments corroborating his side of the story. This definitely threw up a red flag for me, as I find it very hard to believe that fellow passengers would have thought enough of this situation to get on the Internet, do a search, find this blog, and then comment. So I'm left with the conclusion that either A) Those comments are not from other fellow passengers or B) He was trying to corral fellow passengers into his "camp" and had handed out at least several business cards and was already making a scene before asking the FA to come back to his seat so he could explain why he was snapping pictures.

These EWR-IST were on sale a few weeks ago in the ~$400 range and may have even been promoted by the blogger at issue, and they attracted a lot of attention in the FF blogosphere elsewhere. Several of the passengers have their own frequent flyer blogs and wrote about the situation on their own pages. Under normal circumstances, the story would be fishy but in this case I am inclined to believe the posts corroborating the situation are legitimate.

Most twentysomething kids (that don't work in the oil industry) probably have other plans on Valentine's day that don't involve an overnight flight to IST en route to Azerbaijan!

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 44):I love this #2. This is my all time favorite, from the land of the free. We have fought through wars here in Europe to become the free society we are. Some people may be privileged, but a basic human right of moving around freely can never be a privilege. You pay for a ticket and you have the right to fly. The carrier must honor your ticket and he must compensate you if he cannot deliver the product, i.,e. your flight is delayed. That is a privilege you enjoy in states ruled by the law and not by company regulations.

Well said. Everytime I hear someone (usually US airline employees) say "flying is a privilege, not a a right", it really irritates me. Do they even know what rights and privileges are? And what rights a paying customer has?

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 48):You shouldn't be taking pictures of airplanes while in flight. You are going to arise suspicion. And if you say, "I have a right," that is fine...but if you get the wrong crew and they feel that you are a threat or even a question, they will remove you.

Wow, and you are a regular on airliners.net, the #1 place in the world for airline photos, inlcuding inflight!

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 54):He lost me when he dropped the t-word. A few things you just don't say on/near/around/about an airplane.....thats one of them.

So where does it end? Can magazine covers have the word "Terrorist" on it? Can inflight movies mention the word? Does common sense about context and situation in which it is said not matter any more?

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 50):If those are the rules, and they're not explicitly illegal, then you accept them by flying. End of story.

You see, I can't help it, we were taught at school, based on our history, exactly NOT to do that. We were also taught to question rules. I am aware of the situation in the US and if I cannot avoid to fly there on a domestci flight I try not to speak a word, not even good day.

What amazes me all the time is how easily such totalitarian thoughts are accepted. No question, the terrorists have won all the way. and those who sympathize with them must be having a ball every time they travel and look at that agony.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 64):You see, I can't help it, we were taught at school, based on our history, exactly NOT to do that. We were also taught to question rules. I am aware of the situation in the US and if I cannot avoid to fly there on a domestci flight I try not to speak a word, not even good day.

There is a forum to question the propriety of rules, but it is generally not before a person who is merely attempting to enforce rules (even that is debateable), not make them.

There is honor in standing up for what you believe in, but you can't have it both ways. Under the circumstances, the airline can simply leave a noncompliant passenger behind, and they'd be fully within their rights to do so... which is exactly what they did.

This blogger has to be either very naive or very stupid. If he is who he says he is, he would know the policy which is common to all U.S. carriers, you can't take pictures of the crew, equipment, operations or aircraft on the ramp from inside the aircraft. He even quoted as such. He was is so stupid in my opinion. If he in fact does write a blog about UA, he should have known the policy and never taken a picture of anything. You can take pictures of aircraft from a public area, but the inside of an aircraft, is not a public area. I have been involved as a human rights advocate and know that the law is on the side of the airline and can' t condone such breaches of security. The security is there for a reason, although I do agree that the security is much to write home about, it is there and the law is the law. You cannot record any activity from the inside of the aircraft as it is not a public area. The reasons are obvious. You could transmit the information to someone who wants to do harm to the airline or someone and they in turn cause a situation that would endanger the lives of not only the people on board the aircraft but also on the ground and to the reputation of UA or any other airline. Honestly I don't see the reason to record and take pictures from the aircraft if you cannot by law or regulation.

While you may not like, or agree with, some of the more obscure airline policies and regulations, flight attendants have no choice. They are required to enforce them all, as if they were federal law. Why? Because they can be fined if there is an FAA cabin inspector that feels like pushing the issue. They could also be written up if there is someone from management on board. Once someone gets burned, they tend to be more of a stickler for detail. It doesn't matter how many people take one side or another, the rules are what the rules are. There is nothing to be gained from arguing about them on the airplane. Even if the crew is 100% in the wrong, arguing is not going to resolve the issue in your favor, ever.

Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 10):That ridiculous photo policy - no matter how they may interprete it - and the behavior of these crew members are two reasons why I will not consider flying UA again. What a shame.

PH

I will go out of my way to avoid United Airlines for all of my future travels.

The biggest mistake made by most human beings: Listening to only half, understanding just a quarter and telling double.

Quoting toobz (Reply 13):After living in the US for over 20 years I've come to realize and accept that there is a huge book of words one should not use. Ironic being the land of the free and freedom of speech. Far from.

And the sad part, most don't even realize it. They think it's perfectly normal.
Terrorist, terrorist, terrorist...there, I said it, now what?

It's simply outrageous what we have settled for this day and age.

I call it "Tyranny with a Smile". I see it every day and it concerns me greatly. Common sense has left us.

Question Conventional Wisdom. While not all commonly held beliefs are wrong…all should be questioned.

Total overreaction by the crew, but as many have pointed, it´s sadly the world we live in today.

I also had a bit of a nasty experience on CO back in August 2009, I had to fly quickly to MIA from BCN because my mother suffered a stroke, CO was absolutely wonderful and understanding in changing the ticket I had for December (at no cost) but when I was in EWR boarding my flight to MIA (after 8 hours in a 757) a couple of girls asked me if I would switch places with them so they could sit together, I agreed and took their place, once boarding was completed, I noticed I had the row to myself so I quickly moved over to the window seat.

A F/A or ground staff member (cause I didn´t see her upon arrival in MIA) was walking up the aisle counting PAX, she stops by my row, looks at me in a puzzled way...

-Me: Oh I switched places with those 3 girls 3 rows ahead so they could sit together.
-FA: Why did you do that for?
-Me: Do what?
-FA: Now you have messed it all up.
-Me: me?
-FA: Yes you, you messed it all up.

And with that she just walked away, I did not wanted to argue because of the paranoia and because I was tired after being on the road for a while, but made a mental note to ask for her name upon arrival into MIA so I could send a letter of complaint, alas I did not see her during the entire flight.

Until today I am still wondering what exactly I ¨Messed up¨....

Certainly the only time I have experienced such rude treatment while flying, nowadays I rarely visit the US and I don´t need to fly US carriers often (if at all) but my first choice if I have to, is, and it will continue to be DL.

Quoting BC77008 (Reply 58):It seemed very, very odd to me that his fellow passengers found his blog and then left comments corroborating his side of the story. This definitely threw up a red flag for me, as I find it very hard to believe that fellow passengers would have thought enough of this situation to get on the Internet, do a search, find this blog, and then comment. So I'm left with the conclusion that either A) Those comments are not from other fellow passengers or B) He was trying to corral fellow passengers into his "camp" and had handed out at least several business cards and was already making a scene before asking the FA to come back to his seat so he could explain why he was snapping pictures.

I too found that strange, but we have no idea as to why those customers knew where to go. For all we know this guy is very out going and engaged some of the other passengers in discussions when they were waiting at the gate. The one that said "I'll contact you offline" would indicate to me that he did hand out at least one of his cards to somebody on the flight.

United isn't the only U.S. airline with this policy and had this flight been going to a European or South American destination I pretty sure the FA would not have cared about the picture being taken. But on certain flights to certain destination FA are advised in the preflight briefings to remain vigilant and strictly enforce all of UA's security polices which include taking pictures onboard aircraft obviously IST is one of those destinations where where UA feels FA must not deviate from those strict security policies.

But the policy isn't the issue here, the issue here is the fact that a passenger was taken off the flight after the initial incident was over. As was stated in the blog the passenger felt the need to call the FA back over had the passenger just given the FA his coat or called over a different FA and left the situation alone there would have never been a problem. The first mistake that was made was when the passenger tried to explain himself by using the word terrorist onboard a plane. Once you have uttered that word you just escalated the entire situation it's no different than a passenger saying to a TSA agent why do you need to rescreen my bag its not like I have a bomb in it. No passenger would ever be so stupid as to utter the word bomb at a security check point because the repercussion would be severe. So why should a passenger be allowed to remain onboard a flight after using the word terrorist on board a plane?

Did the FA lie to the pilot and/or the ground security coordinator (when ever there is a security issue onboard an UA plane a UA ground security coordinator is called in to respond not the Global Services rep and he is not even a GS passenger with less than a million miles) we do not know because all we have is one forth of the story. We don't have the FA version of what took place we don't know what other passenger onboard may have heard or witnessed nor do we know what was said to the pilot or the ground security coordinator all we have is this pissed off passengers word to go on. And frankly non of this would have taken place had he just left the situation alone after the initial warning was given.

I know there is no love for United on a.netters but you can not simply blame United for this situation and completely absolve the passenger. The passengers words were the reason why this problem started to begin with.

So what's the point of accommodating the off-loaded passenger straight-away for free (including his complimentary upgrade), certainly at a much higher cost for United? Either he is a risk or he is not. If he is, what is the rationale of putting him on another plane? If he committed a crime / was in breach of contract, logic dictates that he should forfeit his ticket rather than be put on the next plane with no expenses spared.

I really do not understand this t-word hairsplitting. The guy was told not to take pictures and he complied. He then, for whatever reason, felt that he should explain the FA and said something to the effect of a) "Just to explain that I did no do anything sinister, I am just an innocent blogger with a rather well-known travel blog. Here is my card to prove it." No wait, actually what he said was more like - b) "Just to explain that I am not a terrorist, I am just an innocent writer of a travel blog people in Chicago are aware of. Here is my card to prove it." So anybody applying common sense in such a situation would feel the need to off-load the guy because of wording b) instead of a) he was using? Come on.

The FA was on an ego trip and went way over the top. All legal nitpicking here whether she had the right to do what she did does not change the fact the she overreacted. What next? You cannot dare to complain about your meal, the broken seat, the non-working IFE because the FA is always right and if you make her feel uncomfortable she will run to the captain and have you thrown off the plane? This sounds more like Con Air than a commercial airline.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 78):Matthew Klint has now gone to the press with his story. I hope he (and more importantly, his travel behaviors) will be prepared to undergo the scrutiny that accompanies such actions.

Hmm, let's wait and see in this unfolds into a "United Broke My Guitar Mk. II" drama (well it won't, it is not half as funny).

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 34):You surrender certain "rights" when you board the airplane. You have agreed to follow all instructions given by the flight crew, no matter how silly or arbitrary they may seem.

Simply untrue. If you instructed a passenger to strip naked in the aisle, do you expect that he/she agreed to comply with that instruction? But then you speak with the voice of one trained in the fine customer service standards of NWA.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 79):We don't have the FA version of what took place we don't know what other passenger onboard may have heard or witnessed nor do we know what was said to the pilot or the ground security coordinator

One would presume that these are all EXACTLY THE SAME THING as they are all "what did the FA say?" But feel free to keep defending the abysmal level of customer service on United. Hopefully the customers will speak and United can make a return trip to Chapter 11.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 44):but a basic human right of moving around freely can never be a privilege.

I can't believe nobody has referenced the airplane scene from "Meet the Parents" .......

In all seriousness though, flying is a right but there are rules governing that right, whether they be criminal laws, tort laws (the FARs 14CFR), or privately issued rules/policies. By flying on UA, that passenger accepted the contract of carriage of his ticket, which I would be willing to bet states that following any and all policies or rules listed in official company literature (ie the inflight magazine) is required. The fact is he violated a UA policy governing travel on UA property.

For example, life is an unalienable right of citizens in the United States, however I can't go running around zapping people with a cattle prod simply because that is what I have determined my life is.

Had the passenger simply apologized or let the situation go, he would have been fine.

However, he decided to make a scene and become disrupted and disorderly which made himself eligible for ejection. The notion that simply using the word 'terrorist' or 'bomb' upsets people is just ridiculous to me, but the fact of the matter is it does, and it apparently did aggravating the situation further.

I have no sympathy for this traveller, he made a choice and it was the wrong one.

Ugh. That story made my blood boil. I would have made sure that I got the names of all of the associated crew and told them that while I will step off the plane as they requested, United will surely be hearing from me, and perhaps from my attorneys.

Completely unacceptable and idiotic behavior. But I suppose the sad sad truth is that, "you can't say bomb on an airplane," as the Ben Stiller movie says. Pathetic.

Quoting A330 (Reply 60):Some Cabin Crew and some flightcrew on US airlines are not only paranoia, they lack common sense, so much needed in this profession.

I understand you used the word "some" in an attempt to avoid making a generalization on US crews. Your comment is still worthless; there's good crews and bad crews everywhere. This non-American superiority complex is really annoying.

Quoting hrc773 (Reply 83):I understand you used the word "some" in an attempt to avoid making a generalization on US crews. Your comment is still worthless; there's good crews and bad crews everywhere. This non-American superiority complex is really annoying.

Of course there are good crew and bad crews everywhere. But much more of these kinds of incidents occur in the US, and I have no qualms in saying that in all my years of flying, I have come across bad crew more often on US airlines than on others.

I have come across good and great crews too on my US flights, but it does not change the fact that the odds of coming across crew on power trips are much higher on US airlines than anywhere else in the "free" world.

American "prevents" people from taking pictures on board. Now, do pics get taken? Yes, but if they say "no" you gotta stop. It's in their AmericanWay magazine. My folks were flying on them and they wanted to take pics of the seats and getting the pre-departure champagne; the FA pointed it out in the magazine.

My dad said, "Oh how odd, I'm a pilot and our son is an FA and we've never heard of this FAR." FA: "It's an American policy so it becomes the FAR, sir."

Ok....

Someone is confused...she was right about the essence of the rule (ie, if a regulatory policy is more restrictive than an FAR that becomes the rule [8 vs 12 hrs bottle to throttle]), but not for just any silly a** "policy."

My comments/opinions are my own and are not to be construed as the opinion(s) of my employer.

Quoting hrc773 (Reply 83):Quoting A330 (Reply 60):
Some Cabin Crew and some flightcrew on US airlines are not only paranoia, they lack common sense, so much needed in this profession.

I understand you used the word "some" in an attempt to avoid making a generalization on US crews. Your comment is still worthless; there's good crews and bad crews everywhere. This non-American superiority complex is really annoying

I think it's concerning just how little common sense the crew displayed on this flight. Maybe some retraining required...

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 80):The FA was on an ego trip and went way over the top. All legal nitpicking here whether she had the right to do what she did does not change the fact the she overreacted. What next? You cannot dare to complain about your meal, the broken seat, the non-working IFE because the FA is always right and if you make her feel uncomfortable she will run to the captain and have you thrown off the plane? This sounds more like Con Air than a commercial airline.

AS a passenger you have a right to complain about the service you receive while onboard an aircraft. That is not what happened here. The FA left and continued her duties and the passenger decided to revisit the situation and used a word that he should have not used while onboard a plane.

But for those of you who think that the passenger was right and the United was wrong and FA over reacted I DARE you the next time you board a flight to tell the FA to his/her face "IT'S NOT LIKE I'M A TERRORIST" and see what happens. I can guarantee you that there is not a single person on this website that has the guts to do that because we all know that no matter what airline you are on you will be escorted off that flight.

Don't blame United or the FA for this passengers stupidity and poor choice of words.

Quoting twincessna340a (Reply 81):which I would be willing to bet states that following any and all policies or rules listed in official company literature (ie the inflight magazine) is required. The fact is he violated a UA policy governing travel on UA property.

Well, in any legal system I am aware of you are only bound by contractual obligations that you have had the chance to become aware of. Hence the need to check the "I agree with the..." box when doing transactions on the internet. If the T&Cs say, as you suggest, that further obligations may be stipulated in the inflight magazine, one partner to the contract does not have a chance to understand her obligations before she has settled in her seat, (hopefully) found the inflight magazine with the relevant page not being ripped out and have read it completely. I am very interested to see a court enforcing such a "no photo"-rule a a contactual obligation. If this is the state of the law in US, in the future I will happily ask the FA when boarding to not close the door before I had the chance to read the entire inflight magazine to understand what further contractual obligations United wants to burden me with while they trap me in their metal tube.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 87):AS a passenger you have a right to complain about the service you receive while onboard an aircraft. That is not what happened here. The FA left and continued her duties and the passenger decided to revisit the situation and used a word that he should have not used while onboard a plane.

What law / regulation says you cannot use the word "terrorist" as in "I want you to understand why I was taking pictures. I hope you didn't think I was a terrorist."? Have FAs their brains replaced by a computer chip with speech recognition software that is only able to record word, but unable to understand context?

As someone elso has correctly observed, stories like this create the impression that as a passenger you are not a customer, but someone who is at the mercy of FAs as they can offload you if you annoy them as they always get away when twisting your words.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 3): I take that particular photo constantly whenever I fly up front. Never had any make an issue of it.

I take pictures of stuff like that on DL all the time. I have taken photos all over the aircraft and nobody has said anything. I have even had FAs take a photo of me in the seat, eating, drinking, etc. I use them in my trip reports.

I can probably look at trip reports right now and find photos from UA.

Quoting MIAspotter (Reply 72):-Me: Oh I switched places with those 3 girls 3 rows ahead so they could sit together.
-FA: Why did you do that for?
-Me: Do what?
-FA: Now you have messed it all up.
-Me: me?
-FA: Yes you, you messed it all up.

That is odd. I have switched seats before and nobody said anything about it. Two days ago, on DLSTL-DTW, the FA told people they could switch seats if they were uncomfortable, because there were plenty of extra seats.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 69):Every second, of every day, everyone sacrifices liberty in exchange for safety. Life would cease to function if we didn't

Some actually like it too, they think that the government should do everything in its power to protect people from harm, from themselves or others.

Anyone surprised he went to the media? This is clearly a publicity stunt on the part of a 26 year old blogger, that has riled up people on here into a frenzy. Again, after only hearing one side of an ALLEGED incident. It's being treated though like it is gospel truth we all witnessed with our own eyes. It can only grow readership of his blog, now with the media on board. So a somewhat brilliant strategy if you ask me. But the jokes still on us.

United's policy does not ban photography outright. It simply sets limitations, which are common not only in aviation, but in the corporate world throughout the US. People take pictures on United all the time with no issue. It's how we have an airliners.net to begin with. But there are limits and clearly there is more to this story and it's unfortunate that it has spiraled into a United bashing thread, with no proof or evidence of any wrongdoing anywhere. Only the word of blogger. I feel like that, sadly, that says more about us, than him.

This thread reminds me of the 2011 incident, also on United, where an aircraft was brought back to the gate and a passenger questioned because he happened to be reading a book on airplanes... WW1 airplanes.

I'd agree with your comments except that the contradictory nature of UA's policy is well noted in reply #5.
You can't tell people not to take photos of installed equipment when it's splashed all over your own website for anyone to see.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 88): in the future I will happily ask the FA when boarding to not close the door before I had the chance to read the entire inflight magazine to understand what further contractual obligations United wants to burden me with while they trap me in their metal tube.

But therein lies the rub: you're not trapped. You had the opportunity/obligation to read the Contract of Carriage before you * voluntarily* boarded.

My comments/opinions are my own and are not to be construed as the opinion(s) of my employer.

Apparently United is already in damage control mode as their comment to NBC was rather defensive and they have reached out to the blogger (he says in his blog that United has suggested to have a telephone conversation later today).

Now I am off to read the story of this Palestinian Academy Award nominee who was not let into the country on his way to the Oscars on the suspicion of being a terrorist - even without uttering the t-word and taking pictures...

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 88):What law / regulation says you cannot use the word "terrorist" as in "I want you to understand why I was taking pictures. I hope you didn't think I was a terrorist."? Have FAs their brains replaced by a computer chip with speech recognition software that is only able to record word, but unable to understand context?

If you believe that you are right and that there is nothing wrong with using the word "terrorist" onboard a plane while talking to a FA why don't you try it out the next time you fly whatever airline you fly. Put your theory to the test that there is no regulation that says you can not use that word while onboard and see what happens.

I look forward to reading your blog about what happens that is if you have the guts to actually do it.

And for those of you who keep saying the FA over reacted one question What happen to the other passenger that was asked to stop taking pictures? No where was it mentioned that he was kicked off the plane I guess he didn't use the word terrorist while talking to a FA while onboard a plane.

Quoting B727FA (Reply 95):
But therein lies the rub: you're not trapped. You had the opportunity/obligation to read the Contract of Carriage before you * voluntarily* boarded.

Please explain - how can I learn of my legal obligation not to take pictures on board (and, for that matter, all other obligations laid out in the inflight magazine) before I board the plane? Or is the state of law that you can indeed be burdened with obligations as in "well, our t&c you can read by clicking on this link and you are just about to agree with by booking the selected flight are not comprehensive. We have a ton of other obligations we will surprise you with once we are in the midst of performing the contract. Never mind, you will find out when you are buckled up in your seat on the plane and read the entirety of hemispheres (that is if nobody has taken away the copy from your seat or ripped out the relevant pages - if so, just wait and be surprised. See, entering into a contract with us is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you get".

Quoting jayunited (Reply 98):And for those of you who keep saying the FA over reacted one question What happen to the other passenger that was asked to stop taking pictures? No where was it mentioned that he was kicked off the plane I guess he didn't use the word terrorist while talking to a FA while onboard a plane

Well, as I understand it, the other guy did not follow FA instructions by continuing to take pictures. So what is worse - saying the t-word in an innocent context or disobeying FA instructions?

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 2):In my opinion, he really pushed it using the t-word when attempting to offer his business card and explanation to the FA later. Sometimes you need to know when to drop it, and realize you aren't going to make a bad situation any better.

This is ridiculous. People were born with brains so that they could evaluate situations with common sense. Would it be acceptable to kick somebody off a plane for having a discussion about the Bill Clinton inauguration photo bomb? Why not? It uses the word "bomb."

Unfortunately the company gets painted by stupid behaviour of a couple of people with no common sense -- the flight attendant and the captain.

As for the blogger...he writes with a huge slant, albeit his own, on life and his perception of things (case in point this: http://upgrd.com/matthew/ua1275-ewr-...-united-first-to-united-worst.html ), his description of the family who he believes is Italian. Some people do things for attention: money, notoriety, 15 minutes of fame, freebies, etc. to get what they want. And will do so at all costs. The way he talks about the family on his EWR-LAX flight made me lose all respect for him. It was unnecessary. He chose the low road, he could have easily said they were ill-mannered, loud, whatever, but chose the stereotypes to get his point across.

As for the F/A. She is obviously not an A-netter . DTWpurser bring a very serious point about crew safety off the plane when some people take things too far. That aside, some (not all, but a small amount - some) crew do have a lac of common sense and do the wrong things, for the wrong reason, at the wrong times. You find this everywhere. Any job, it is just more prevalent here as it is an aviation forum. I will acknowledge that there are a few of us (by us I mean all F/As) that need some customer service training and a class or two in common sense. Ok, three.

Quoting A330 (Reply 59):Some Cabin Crew and some flightcrew on US airlines are not only paranoia, they lack common sense, so much needed in this profession. this is one case it seems where common sense was thrown overboard .
And please kids, call a Terrorist a Terrorist, stop,the T- wording. We are not in kindergarten.

Let's look at this from the flight attendant's point of view instead of the passenger's. The FA has asked him to stop taking photographs, he appears to be complying, and the FA moves on to other passengers and preflight duties. Later the passenger asks the flight attendant to hang his coat. Ok, no problem there, but when she arrives to take the coat he brings up the previous situation, which she percieves as the passenger trying to argue about the situation. Was he really being argumentative? We don't know. It's he said/ she said, but we only have his side of the story, and we have no clue as to the tone he took while attempting to explain himself. Either way, the FA percieved him as being argumentative, but he then brings up terrorism and makes it much worse for himself. What's an FA going to do in this case? Go to the captain and advise them of the argumentative passenger.

Now let's look at the captain's viewpoint. When a flight attendant comes up to the flight deck and says they are having a problem with a passenger, the first question from the captain is almost always the same, "do you feel they need to be removed, or are you comfortable with them staying?". If the FA wants the passenger removed, that passenger is going to be removed and there's three reasons for that:

1) Better to deal with belligerent passengers on the ground than mid-Atlantic.

2) The captain doesn't have the experience dealing with unruly passengers that flight attendants do, and therefore will almost always defer to their opinion on whether a passenger should be removed or not.

3) The captain is concerned with preserving a good working relationship between all crew members. In an emergency captain's need to know he can count on having good communication and teamwork with the flight attendants, and if he doesn't remove a passenger that flight attendants feel should be removed, the necessary trust between the cabin and flight deck can break down.

Did the captain actually say what the blogger has alleged, or has this been exaggerated? Again, we don't know.

It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 88):What law / regulation says you cannot use the word "terrorist" as in "I want you to understand why I was taking pictures. I hope you didn't think I was a terrorist."? Have FAs their brains replaced by a computer chip with speech recognition software that is only able to record word, but unable to understand context?

It is basically a given here in the US. The instant you mention the word "bomb" or "terrorist" on an airplane, at an airport, or basically within earshot of airport/airline personnel and you are about to board a plane, then you can forget it.

As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, the guy dug his own grave the second he mentioned the word. It's pretty much a zero tolerance policy and as much as I side with the frustration of the traveler in this case, there is little that can be done here.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 88):As someone elso has correctly observed, stories like this create the impression that as a passenger you are not a customer, but someone who is at the mercy of FAs as they can offload you if you annoy them as they always get away when twisting your words.

You are a customer, but you can also be denied service by the captain. At the end of the day, you are not the one flying the plane from point A to point B: you paid for the services, but if you are deemed unfit to fly, the Captain has the final say in the matter.

I fully agree that the FA who handled this situation was unethical, and quite frankly, lazy. She likely saw it as an opportunity to make her job easier that day by removing a passenger to serve, and her subsequent body language (and secondarily, the captain's) were signals that they probably immediately regretted their actions and knew what they were doing was extreme. The FA should be sacked from her job, or at least barred from serving the premium cabins.

None of this changes the fact that the aviation landscape is not a joking one (unfortunately) and certain behaviors (such as bringing toy handcuffs or fake guns in your carry-on) and specific words will get you into trouble if you're caught.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 29): Taking a picture is common practise for travellers documenting their journey. We have numerous examples under trip reports on this site.

The stated UAL policy expressly permits the sort of photos we take. I have often been in the position of wondering if I can snap a picture - some FAs are jumpy, others don't care. I've always found that striking up a friendly conversation with the FA and smiling a lot gets me all sorts of things - including photographs on board.

Quoting A330 (Reply 30):By the way, please stop using this ridiculousm "t-word" it is terrorist .

So the to further add to the hypocrisy of an airline that encourages its customers, through its offal social media outlets, to post photos of their travels on board UA, we now have proof of UA telling its FAs to enforce the rules only on certain flights. So which is it: take photos on board or don't? enforce all the rules on all floghts or don't? Seems to me someone at UA needs to sit down and figure out what the hell is going on, because the mixed messages are prolific.

I have mixed feelings about this one. I have no idea what the personality is of the blogger, but perhaps that combined with a particular personality of the FA in question made this a volatile situation. There is ABSOLUTELY a lot of substance to the comment that since 9/11, UA/AA crews might be a bit more observant of a persons behavior than they were before.
Surely everyone can understand why this is the case.
With that being said, there is so much going on in the boarding process that I probably wouldn't even have noticed him taking a picture. If I did, I would assume he was taking it in an innocent manner, just as the blogger says he was. If the product looks good, heck I don't care if you take a picture of it. I am sure there are multiple pictures taken and multiple videos going on phones all over the plane. It has become enormously difficult and I would say impossible to regulate.
This was, in my opinion, a personality clash, period. I think if she was having questions in her head about this individual, then the word "terrorist" cemented it. But we have no way of knowing his body language, the tone of his voice, etc.
If anyone wants to single out UA/AA then go right ahead. I didn't know any of the crew on either AA flight, but 11 1/2 years later I still think of them and remember how vulnerable and innocent they were. We're a huge company with lots of problems, but that day we all felt personally violated and the job changed forever.
The captain should have definitely looked at the person in the eye. The flight attendant overeacted, perhaps. But in the end, the pilot is the one who ultimately makes the call.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 44):Right, so this justifies bad service, and attitude to premium passengers who are the backbone of the company's revenue and ultimately pay your wages. What planet are you on? This sounds like an attitude from the soviet era Aeroflot!

No, it doesn't justify anything. The fact is, you buy a ticket, the company you buy that ticket from has an obligation to honor that ticket and provide the service you paid for. As the passenger, you have an obligation to comply with the rules that company imposes upon it's customers. These obligations (company-customer and customer-company) are detailed in the Contract of Carriage. If, as the customer, you do not care for either the restrictions imposed in the Contract of Carriage or the way that the company imposes those restrictions upon it's customers, you have no obligation to continue doing business with that company.

End of story.

Quoting MIAspotter (Reply 72):-Me: Oh I switched places with those 3 girls 3 rows ahead so they could sit together.
-FA: Why did you do that for?
-Me: Do what?
-FA: Now you have messed it all up.
-Me: me?
-FA: Yes you, you messed it all up.

And with that she just walked away, I did not wanted to argue because of the paranoia and because I was tired after being on the road for a while, but made a mental note to ask for her name upon arrival into MIA so I could send a letter of complaint, alas I did not see her during the entire flight.

Until today I am still wondering what exactly I ¨Messed up¨....

For weight-and-balance purposes, the flight manifest needs to show how much weight is in each zone of the aircraft. Adults are given a different standard weight than children are, so if you switched places with someone who was being counted as a child for weight-and-balance purposes, or if you (1 person) switched seats with a group (not 1 person) and the switch was across enough rows that it was into a different loading zone, then, yes, you did mess 'it' all up. 'It' in this case being the manifest, which would now need to be corrected. If the paperwork had been finalized by the captain, this would mean making a change to the paperwork and re-submitting it. At most companies these days this is done electronically, so the flight cannot depart until the captain has recieved confirmation that the amended paperwork has been recieved electronically. If the manifest was not submitted electronically (perhaps the ACARS system was inoperative or just not installed on that aircraft or aircraft type), then this would mean tracking down all the copies of the manifest and making the change. If the flight had pushed back from the gate, this could obviously mean a return to the gate.

So.. if you want to change seats after the boarding process is complete, PLEASE ring the call button and ask. It could save a lot of headache.

Quoting ozark1 (Reply 108):If anyone wants to single out UA/AA then go right ahead. I didn't know any of the crew on either AA flight, but 11 1/2 years later I still think of them and remember how vulnerable and innocent they were. We're a huge company with lots of problems, but that day we all felt personally violated and the job changed forever.

9/11 was terrible, but I'm sorry to say that if 12 years on one blames that for poor customer handling and power trips today, then I suggest perhaps the trauma was too much for the crew that exhibit this kind of poor judgment and paranoid behaviour, and they should not be flying anymore. They could snap if faced with a real safety or security-related emergency.

Quoting pacifique75 (Reply 58):The irony is some people post photos of F/A who are not aware of being photographed or filmed, howver they never show their own photo or real name in their trip reports

It seems very rude to do that.

Quoting peanuts (Reply 70):It's simply outrageous what we have settled for this day and age.

I call it "Tyranny with a Smile". I see it every day and it concerns me greatly. Common sense has left us.

We see a lot of things everyday but it's usually a few people that are the bad ones. Most people could take a picture on a plane and have no problem. Most people would handle it better than this guy. On this day, we ran into a few of those bad ones knocking heads apparently.

It doesn't make the rest of us morons, though.

Quoting MIAspotter (Reply 72):-Me: Oh I switched places with those 3 girls 3 rows ahead so they could sit together.
-FA: Why did you do that for?
-Me: Do what?
-FA: Now you have messed it all up.
-Me: me?
-FA: Yes you, you messed it all up.

Quoting B727FA (Reply 95):entire inflight magazine to understand what further contractual obligations United wants to burden me with

Quoting sankaps (Reply 97):Quoting B727FA (Reply 95):
But therein lies the rub: you're not trapped. You had the opportunity/obligation to read the Contract of Carriage before you * voluntarily* boarded.

The contract of carriage includes the warning on photography then?

Not at all; but sarcastically suggesting a flight should be delayed to see "...what further contractual obligations" can be gleaned from the inflight magazine is to imply that the contract is contained therein...and that there is something "new" to be discovered by reading it. Secondly one can't use the "entrapment" argument when you voluntarily board the aircraft; "secret contractual terms within the inflight magazine" not withstanding.

Quoting catiii (Reply 107):we now have proof of UA telling its FAs to enforce the rules only on certain flights.

We have nothing of the sort. An alleged suggestion, perhaps, but certainly no smoking gun memo.

Quoting meister808 (Reply 109):So.. if you want to change seats after the boarding process is complete, PLEASE ring the call button and ask. It could save a lot of headache.

Interestingly enough, we just received a memo on this 2 days ago. It's not often an issue when we're full, but on light flights the w/b is figured based on the dispatch numbers (fuel, cargo locations, etc) including the SEAT MAP as programmed/populated at boarding. If the computer system "tells" the w/b program there are pax in seats X, X, X, X, and X and once on the a/c there are *actually* pax in seats X, U, G, M, and A it COULD be a problem. Not likely, but possible. Simple solution: "Hi, looks like we're about done boarding. May I move over there?" Within a zone it's not too big a deal...just ask!

My comments/opinions are my own and are not to be construed as the opinion(s) of my employer.

If an airline doesn't want people taking photos, then put it in the contract of carriage. Don't hide it in some magazine that someone may never look at.

All this "flying isn't a right, it's a privilege" thing makes me crazy. An airline is a common carrier. If you want to go somewhere you contract with the airline to take you there. There are terms and conditions for both parties to follow in that contract. As a passenger you have the right to choose which carrier's terms and conditions fit your needs. So now that we know UA or AA won't allow photos then take another carrier that does. Simple as that.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 99):Please explain - how can I learn of my legal obligation not to take pictures on board (and, for that matter, all other obligations laid out in the inflight magazine) before I board the plane? Or is the state of law that you can indeed be burdened with obligations as in "well, our t&c you can read by clicking on this link and you are just about to agree with by booking the selected flight are not comprehensive. We have a ton of other obligations we will surprise you with once we are in the midst of performing the contract. Never mind, you will find out when you are buckled up in your seat on the plane and read the entirety of hemispheres (that is if nobody has taken away the copy from your seat or ripped out the relevant pages - if so, just wait and be surprised. See, entering into a contract with us is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you get".

The Contract of Carriage is available in its entirety on United.com just like it is for all airlines. It is your responsibility to read this before you decide to by your ticket. United cannot force you you read this document however once onboard a United flight United does have the right to enforce the contract of carriage that you agreed to when you voluntarily bought your ticket.

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 99):Well, as I understand it, the other guy did not follow FA instructions by continuing to take pictures. So what is worse - saying the t-word in an innocent context or disobeying FA instructions?

Obviously saying the T-word was worse it got him kicked off the plane.

I believe there is a video rights issue when photographing a video screen. It is akin to recording in a theater. Obviously the image was only the start screen but the FA did not necessarily know what was being displayed. The real problem however is probably the "follow crewmember instructions" rule.

Taking photos on the aircraft otherwise is not that much of an issue. A FA even took one of me and my son for us.

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 119):I believe there is a video rights issue when photographing a video screen. It is akin to recording in a theater. Obviously the image was only the start screen but the FA did not necessarily know what was being displayed. The real problem however is probably the "follow crewmember instructions" rule.

He followed the crewmember's instructions anddid not take any more photos. Therefore as per your logic above, he should not have been booted off the aircraft, the other guy who continued taking photos should have been.

But exactly the opposite happened, because apparently saying "I am not a terrorist" is worse than not following crewmember instructions.

Quoting ba319-131 (Reply 8):Now he should not have used the T word, that was a stupid move, that aside, it just shows how Americans have become scared of their own shadow, it's really quite sad this once great nation now views every move by others as something potentially dangerous.

I could not live like that.

If you live in the UK, you do live like that. Maybe not as much as we do across the pond though.

Back to topic

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 53):He lost me when he dropped the t-word. A few things you just don't say on/near/around/about an airplane.....thats one of them.

The guy used the word "terrorist". Of course, common sense says avoid it. But legally speaking, can you not utter this word on a plane? He didnt say "I am a terrorist" or "I'll seek revenge by becoming a terrorist." So what the hell was the big deal? Is there a list of words that you cannot speak on an airplane printed anywhere?

All I think about when I hear stuff like this is the movie Meet The Parents and "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb! You gonna arrest me?" Common sense has left the building. Apparently we are all too stupid to be allowed to use the power of discretion. While I don't care for slanted blogs, for the FA to make a big deal out of taking a harmless photo is ridiculous. This FA clearly doesn't know which side the company's bread is buttered on either.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 116):Quoting type-rated (Reply 114):
put it in the contract of carriage. Don't hide it in some magazine that someone may never look at.

Did you intend to make this statement as ridiculous as it sounds?

It's not ridiculous. How many people do YOU know that read UA's inflight magazine cover to cover each time they fly?
If they won't put it in the contract of carriage placard the cabin with signs indicating the no photos policy or add it to the evacuation announcement. Something like "...at this time we would like to remind you of United's No Photos policy, please refrain from taking photos within the aircraft.Thank you."

Just once I would love to have a Book of FAR's with me and if a FA tells me I can't do something because of "FAA Regulations" I'd love to shove the book in her face and say "Ok, honey show me".

Honestly, the author sounds like a little bitch. If he is a 1k member how come he has never flown in the biz/first seat? Dropping the terrorist reference did him in. Good for UA. What does he think should have happened, UA delay the flight of 300 or so people so he can plead his case. Sorry about his luck.

The FA should not have escalated the issue!
I think that the author thought it would put the FA at ease by explaining himself. I blame the whole thing entirely on the FA, United and the captain. I would usually side with the stressed and busy airline workers but this case is just ridiculous!

Not only is this incomprehensible but the ink is ugly and the paper is from the wrong kind of tree

Quoting motif1 (Reply 125):I think that the author thought it would put the FA at ease by explaining himself.

By telling the FA that he regularly blogs about United and that the folks in Chicago are aware of him? What was she to think? That the episode would end up somewhere on the internet, complete with photographic evidence, wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility ... which is exactly what happened in the end.

The blogger has flown enough to know not to start up with the crew while the door is still open. The follow-up conversation "to put the FA at ease" was simply unnecessary.

Quoting tp1040 (Reply 121):They haven't even pushed back and this guy is not going to "let go" of being told what to do by the F/A.

He just had to keep ARGUING with the F/A to JUSTIFY what he was doing.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 117):The Contract of Carriage is available in its entirety on United.com just like it is for all airlines. It is your responsibility to read this before you decide to by your ticket. United cannot force you you read this document however once onboard a United flight United does have the right to enforce the contract of carriage that you agreed to when you voluntarily bought your ticket.

OK, I will put it differently:

Please show me the section in the contract of carriage that makes it my contractual obligation not to take pictures (so that I am in breach of contract if I do).

Do you think that there is more to the story than just his side from his blog? Although I can say that I am surprised it was UA that had the crappy service and rude crew. I have experienced rudeness on some of my flights but it seems to be most prevalent on UA.

So does the contract of carriage for UA go into prohibitions on photography in the cabin and prohibitions on usage of certain words, and also stipulate that by entering into such contract you waive your right to use cameras or other recording devices and waive your right to use those words?

Quoting rwsea (Reply 19):Busy or not with pre-take off activities, the FAs are first and foremost in a service position and need to conduct themselves with professionalism and honesty.

I am sure UA would disagree with you.. FA's, are FIRST and foremost in a SAFETY position. If asked at ANY interview with any major carrier what your primary responsibility is, and a candidate answered 'service" they would quickly be reminded first and FOREMOST their responsibility is SAFETY. I am not siding with the FA or the passenger. I am simply correcting this statement.

Quoting RIXrat (Reply 14):Even eliminating the word "terrorist," don't many of us when going through the airport and security and then putting up with half-read edicts by the airlines, feel like we are being terrorised?

Since 2001 the real terrorists have won. The REAL ones wont use the T word...good grief!!!

I used to laugh about the iron curtain in the 70´s thay the confiscated everything, you could not take pictures, could not "have a friendly talk" with any police KGB or stassi ...... we complained and mocked the russians and all their satellite republic in the cold war.... now its the other way around, the USA government promoting fear 24/7, and having all kind of prohibitions based on "freedom"... the irony is killing me....

the Captain and the cabin crew are there to enforce Policy, either you follow the policy or you fly someone ELSE! If the policy is in PLACE? it's there because of some previous Tombstone OR perceived safety hazard. Passengers don't HAVE to agree with it. You cannot get on A public conveyance as do as you please. I cannot as an airline Maintenance Rep do as I please because I don't Like the policy. Your ticket allows you the right to get WHERE you're going safely and in a timely manner. I does NOT give you rights beyond THAT. I COMPLETELY agree with the captain and the flight attendant. I'd have had the person brought up on Charges in the same place.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 133):the Captain and the cabin crew are there to enforce Policy, either you follow the policy or you fly someone ELSE! If the policy is in PLACE? it's there because of some previous Tombstone OR perceived safety hazard. Passengers don't HAVE to agree with it. You cannot get on A public conveyance as do as you please. I cannot as an airline Maintenance Rep do as I please because I don't Like the policy. Your ticket allows you the right to get WHERE you're going safely and in a timely manner. I does NOT give you rights beyond THAT. I COMPLETELY agree with the captain and the flight attendant. I'd have had the person brought up on Charges in the same place.

For the umpteenth time, he did comply with the flight attendants' instructions.

The guy who didn't was allowed to stay on the plane.

The biggest mistake made by most human beings: Listening to only half, understanding just a quarter and telling double.

On my recent trip back from London, I was excited to be on ship 001 Gordon M Bethune, and the FA's encouraged me to take pictures of the plaque, them and the plane, then they took pictures of me with the plaque and suggested I get my wife so they could take pictures of both of us. I have on other occasions been asked not to take pictures while boarding the plane, and once of the view out the window, but never threatened.

All airlines, not just United need to agree on a policy and stick to it. And I hope that policy is a sensible one of allowing pictures (if they don't bother other passengers) and if there is suspicious behavior, investigate.

I work in a bank and when we see something suspicious, we are supposed to head the situation off with good customer service. Welcome them to the bank, ask how their day is, etc. Someone who is notice won't want to be remembered, and won't rob the bank. Also, we learn if they are nervous, etc and can learn more about the situation than accusing.

She started the discussion with him when she decided she wanted to play Air Marshal over him taking a photo of the AVOD screen. Age has nothing to do with it. If you want to be 70 and treated like a prisoner, that's your prerogative.

Quoting flyfree727 (Reply 130):I am sure UA would disagree with you.. FA's, are FIRST and foremost in a SAFETY position. If asked at ANY interview with any major carrier what your primary responsibility is, and a candidate answered 'service" they would quickly be reminded first and FOREMOST their responsibility is SAFETY. I am not siding with the FA or the passenger. I am simply correcting this statement.

This is the problem with many US carriers today, especially, UA/AA/US. F/A's get the idea in their head that they're ONLY there for "safety" and totally disregard the customer service aspect of their job. They view passengers as an annoying inconvenience rather than the reason they have their jobs in the first place. It's sad & disgusting.

Flying even run of the mill, average middle eastern and asian carriers puts US F/A service in the disgraceful light that it deserves. Hong Kong Airlines, JAL, Emirates, even African carriers like Kenyan make the customer service on UA look pititful.

The captain probably made a mistake in this case by trusting his flight attendant. I've learned over the years to be extremely skeptical when an F/A claims to have an issue with some passenger and wants them removed. It's usually some kind of petty disagreement that causes the F/A to go on a power trip over, then throw a hissy fit if she doesn't get her way. What we're experiencing is a nasty convergence of feminism, unionism, entitlement, paranoia, and bitterness.

Maybe we can get "planemaker" to replace F/A's with vending machines someday soon.

Unfortunately the Captain really can't override the cabin crew at many airlines without risking many months of political vitriol. He probably didn't want to kick this guy off but was faced with either making this customer angry or making the entire inflight department take revenge on him for who knows how long (and these people are handling his food/beverage). It's a really unfortunate situation.

And those of you who say this is a cultural problem in the US, you're right. We're moving closer and closer to the western European nanny-state model and it's an absolute disgrace. Many of us are fighting this trend though. The government is out of control and corporations are taking cues from the government by severely restricting the behaviors of their customers and employees.

The good thing is we have a choice of air carriers. Why anyone would fly AA/UA/US when they have a choice baffles me.

She could have just said that she didn't need more explanation and that as long as the passenger was complying with instructions everything was fine. Instead she went and messed it up for everyone involved. Over what?

Sad story!

Not only is this incomprehensible but the ink is ugly and the paper is from the wrong kind of tree

Quoting catiii (Reply 5):The UA policy is contradictory and, thusly, stupid. UA maintains a Facebook, Instagram, and twitter page in which customers are encouraged to share photos of their UA travel experience. Now how does that square with thei posted policy in their magazine, which by the way no,one ever reads. If this were such an important policy, then why aren't any announcements ever made reminding pax about the no photo rule?

Furthering this view:

If taking a photo on board the aircraft is such an important issue, then why is it not addressed directly during pre-boarding announcements as well as during pre-flight announcements? We're told in no uncertain terms that our electronic devices have to be turned off and stowed, that our carry-on bags have to fit in certain places, that smoking is prohibited in the lavatories. If the airline is going to reclassify the normal, everyday occurrence of taking a photo as an egregious violation of flight rules, punishable by forfeiture of travel, then it would only seem appropriate to address the important issue directly instead of burying it in obscurity in the inflight magazine. At the very least, the preboarding and preflight announcements should say, "No photographs may be taken on board the aircraft of anything pertaining to the aircraft or the flight crew. For more information, please see page (x) in the Hemispheres inflight magazine."

all comes down to personality of the crew. Some hate their jobs and/or people, and instead of being a "customer service rep" with 50-300 strangers each flight, much easier to act like a prison guard. Recently took my family to FL down on SW back on Spirit. On SW 20 min after take off I approached front galley to ask for water for my 4 year old son. I was told "we'll be starting cabin service shortly" as in 'wait your turn'. I was crystal clear the request was for my 4 year old but the nasty FAs gave me a look that clearly said sit down and shut up. No worries, I sent a very polite em to SW just relating the facts and got a huge apology and sizeable voucher. I feared flying Spirit for the first time bc they have a rep of being brutal and charging for oxygen. But that crew could not have been nicer.

US pax have voted w their pocketbooks. We value price more than anything except safety. Me included. Real price is that we have to accept -- always in coach, often in business even in First (and this has little to do w 9/11, I had this experience on both AA and UA First pre-9/11) -- that if we get a bitter,nasty,resentful, or plain mean cabin crew, and we say or do the wrong thing, we have zero rights and recourse except 50-50 chance at a voucher if we complain after the fact. My 1970s childhood memories of falling in love w flying bc UA took me to the red carpet room and up front to meet the flight crew, and AA FAs fawned all over me bc I asked questions about their jobs, etc., are as distant a memory as Pan Am Clippers at LGA. Flying today on any US carrier means you have virtually a 100% chance of arriving safely, and a 50-50 chance of paying less than your ticket actually costs the carrier. Everything else about the experience is either negative or a crap shoot.

Quoting B727FA (Reply 95):You had the opportunity/obligation to read the Contract of Carriage

Here is the relevent document (updated as at February 7, 2013)http://www.united.com/web/format/pdf/Contract_of_Carriage.pdf
Can you show me where it says that you may not take photographs? The only reference to cameras, photos or photographic equipment is where it says UA will not be liable to any loss or damage to them and that you may carry a camera on-board as part of your allowance.

The contract does say

Quote:Transportation of Passengers and Baggage provided by United Air Lines, Inc. and Carriers doing business as United Express, are subject to the following terms and conditions, in addition to any terms and conditions printed on or in any ticket, ticket jacket or eticket receipt. By purchasing a ticket or accepting transportation, the passenger agrees to be bound thereby.

(Emphasis added.) No reference to needing to read the in-flight magazine or it carrying any additional requirements that must be observed in addition to the CoC.

However, that doesn't really appear to have been the issue. The other passenger who took photos was not booted off, if the blogger's report is correct. The issue is challenging authority. He argued back, preventing the FA from carrying out her other pre-flight duties. This might be seen as "disruptive" or "disorderly" but he didn't fail to comply with orders. Obviously whatever reason the FA gave, his action could not have been a major concern as if it had UA would have been under no obligation to carry him. But as we have seen, UA did ensure that he was accommodated on a later flight.

Quoting flyfree727 (Reply 130):I am sure UA would disagree with you.. FA's, are FIRST and foremost in a SAFETY position.

Two points:

1) This is the problem with US airlines. If FA's are first and foremost there for safety reasons, then they are highly overpaid because their services are rarely needed. Lots of beaches have volunteer lifeguards to rescue any swimmers who might be drowning, and my town has volunteer firefighters - they aren't paid anything. Should we do the same with FA's? Being an FA is a service position in the entire rest of the world outside of the US, as it should be here as well (and was, before 9/11). They're not getting paid on each flight to sit there just in case something bad happens. They're being paid to provide service to the passengers. That's their real job. Sorry if you don't see it that way.

2) Taking photos for a blog has nothing to do with the safety of the flight, which is perhaps the most important point here. Even if the FA's job was primarily safety-related, she didn't perform it properly in this case. Nothing she did improved the safety of the flight; all she did was get a high-value customer kicked off the plane and ensured some bad PR for the airline. She really should be fired for lying about a customer's actions.

Again, even if your position is that FA's are there for safety, this FA did not perform that function properly in this case. She lied about a guy taking a photo for a blog. There's no justification for this under any rationale.

I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!

Quoting AA87 (Reply 142): Flying today on any US carrier means you have virtually a 100% chance of arriving safely, and a 50-50 chance of paying less than your ticket actually costs the carrier. Everything else about the experience is either negative or a crap shoot.

Very well put.

I fly internally in the US about once or twice a year, and on overseas legacy carriers about 8 times a year. In my experience, this arrogant, surly and occasionally downright aggressive behavior from flight attendants is the almost exclusive domain of US legacy carriers. The rest of the world wouldn't - and don't - put up with it.

This is always intrigued me, because this the nation that turned litigation into an art form. These same people who would send back a steak for being medium-rare as opposed to rare while firmly berating the waiter and chef; will consider any flight where open hostility is not experienced as great service. It's a form of bullying by the FAs really. They know once inside the metal tube, the hapless PAX has no immediate rights whatsoever.

And this is not - at least not entirely - a post 9/11 concept. Perhaps that dreadful day made things worse; but surly behavior was becoming the norm well through the 1990's.

One exception in my experience is Southwest Airlines. In 20 or so flights with them, I've never had one where the service and interaction was anything but excellent.

Quoting sq_ek_freak (Reply 144):Wow I can't even fathom how to respond to that as a fellow flight attendant (albeit not for an American carrier). What a way to approach a job. You speak as if it is the passengers' privilege to be flying with you, and that while on the aircraft, you are god, and seem to relish in this power you possess over the masses for intermittent periods of time. I'm sorry, I don't tend to ever really say things like that to others in the forum much less a fellow cabin crew but I just had to be honest and express how off putting I found that post.

Safety of my passengers and my fellow crew is my number one priority but I do not expect passengers to keep their head down and live in fear of me or one of my colleagues threatening them the moment they have the audacity to say something more to me beyond "yes, ma'am/sir".

x1000

Bravo. Brilliant post.

People keep forgetting that the passenger in question did stop taking photographs after being asked to do so. It appears that the passenger tried to approach the flight attendant in a reconciliatory manner (albeit in an awkward way), and the flight attendant responded in a very heavy handed way that contravenes any notion of common sense.

Now I understand why airlines such as Asiana or Cathay can get away with charging hundreds of dollars more for the same flight. The U.S. based carriers can only compete on price.

The biggest mistake made by most human beings: Listening to only half, understanding just a quarter and telling double.

Quoting KAUSpilot (Reply 138):F/A's get the idea in their head that they're ONLY there for "safety" and totally disregard the customer service aspect of their job. They view passengers as an annoying inconvenience rather than the reason they have their jobs in the first place. It's sad & disgusting.

This has "power trip", paranoia and lack of common sense written all over it.

It is also why many people, including myself, avoid US-based airlines like the proverbial plague...
Unfortunately, occassionally there is no other choice and I have to put up with attitudes like yours.

Quoting hoons90 (Reply 150): It appears that the passenger tried to approach the flight attendant in a reconciliatory manner (albeit in an awkward way), and the flight attendant responded in a very heavy handed way that contravenes any notion of common sense.

That's the thing, we don't really know in what way the flight attendant percieved his manner when he approached her. He may have been trying to be reconciliatory, but what if he instead came across as agressive or argumentative. We know what he says he said. We don't know if that's what he actually said or not. We don't know the volume of his voice, intonation of his voice, or body language.

Simply put, none of us have enough information to be able to truly say whether the FA was in the wrong or not.

It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.

It seems many here are assuming what this guy wrote is completely accurate.
You're only seeing one side which I highly doubt is unbiased.
For all we know, he could've been stand-offish, smelled of alcohol, maybe other passengers complained, or who knows what.
One thing I find very peculiar is that he did not leave the issue alone: Think about it: Why would anyone readdress a FA about something he was asked to stop doing? Given the circumstances, I find it probable he had a bone to pick. If that were the case, than he got exactly what he deserved. But again, we just don't know what happened.

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 33)

Quote: Just relax, say "yes, ma'am/sir" and do as you are asked. It is the path of least resistance.

Saying "Yes ma'am / yes Sir" to a flight attendant is absurd and I find it disturbing that you, as a flight attendant, actually expect that kind of obedience from passengers. I believe all passengers should comply with crew member instructions and to do so politely; however, no one should allow themselves to be mistreated or disrespected.

Quoting Capt.Fantastic (Reply 159):One thing I find very peculiar is that he did not leave the issue alone: Think about it: Why would anyone readdress a FA about something he was asked to stop doing? Given the circumstances, I find it probable he had a bone to pick. If that were the case, than he got exactly what he deserved. But again, we just don't know what happened.

Perhaps he thought he got off on the wrong foot and wanted to make amends and build some rapport with the cabin crew on what is a long flight in the J cabin. If I believe that I made someone angry as a result of some sort of misunderstanding, I'd probably want to resolve it proactively.
If I was looking for trouble, the very last thing I would do is give out a business card that may have my name, employer and other information on it, such as contact information.

[Edited 2013-02-21 21:12:57]

The biggest mistake made by most human beings: Listening to only half, understanding just a quarter and telling double.

Quote:This story brings forth the ease with which a crew can just boot a paying passenger of a flight, unjustified or otherwise, and without any consequence to them or their employer.

Have we Americans become so accepting of someone trampling our civil rights, and the basic tenet of ethical business dealing. I travel globally, and with the exception of US and British carriers, other world airline crews know who pays their salary.

I am not advocating crews should accept threats lying down. But there has to be a requirement of explanation.

If a crew wants me off the plane, fine. But then ethical and fair business practice is that it the airline's responsibility to get me to my final destination and make good any losses suffered as a consequence of my denied travel.

Only when airlines start getting hit in their wallets will they start questioning their crew, and only then will the crew

And @Matthew, my hats off to your understanding and patience, for giving that crew even the slightest modicum of doubt. If United employees, even one, do not value you as a customer, it is time to move on. Get your million mile card, cut it and send it to the CEO of United. Believe me, they care.

Quoting PlaneHunter (Reply 10):That ridiculous photo policy - no matter how they may interprete it - and the behavior of these crew members are two reasons why I will not consider flying UA again. What a shame.

When I had an incident on an AA 777 a few years ago I had an incident with a few FA's because I wanted to walk around the 777 and have a look during the boarding process. This was my first time on a 777. I was intercepted by two fa's who told me I can't look around inside the aircraft. It's "against FAA regulations". I was told to stay in my seat the remainder of the flight. I handed one of them my business card and said to deliever it to the Captain.

About an hour after take off one of the F/A's came up to me and asked me what I would like to drink. So I ordered two Bacardi & Cokes. The F/A went and got them and explained "They are on the Captain". After she put the drinks down she handed my my business card back. On the back it was handwritten "Thank You For Flying American Airlines, signed Captain XXX".

And a week later I got on a 777 for my trip home and had the same exact crew! At the door the purser said "Oh no, not you again!". I smiled and said "Yes, me again. But I won't look around this time." We all laughed at that one.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 165):Sounds almost like you would prefer a flight full of prisoners in chains and restraints. What happened to customer service and common human decency?

That was my thinking as well. I suggest that the last super merger should take place in the US and the emerging airline called either Ameriflot or , much better, Conair.

Passengers get a choice between plastic restraints or metal handcuffs and shackles. Passengers have to assemble at the boarding gate in an orderly fashion. If the guard whistles once marching onb board starts, 2 whistles mean immediate stop and so on.

What DTWPurserboy writes is stand-up comedy at its best, really. Unbelievable.

Shut up and be quiet and don't disturb the prison guards. Don't say NO at any time whilst on board.

Sheesh, I had a really lucky escape... I flew on a UA 787 late last year and I took pictures of the cabin, the IFE, the BF seats, the electronic window blinds... Heck, I was even shown to the Flightdeck at the end of the flight and was offered the opportunity to take a picture in there. Many other passengers did the same. Now I realise how close I must have come to being kicked off the flight. Or is it that some crews take a more sensible and balanced view of passengers who take photographs?

What would have happened if the blogger would have informed gate agents / Police/ UA ground staff after deboarding, claiming that he considers the FA making false accusations as a security risk and ask the ground people to investigate and take action, make protocol?
Not beeing asked to gt on the flight again, but in a sense: you better take action.

Just curious about this, before I may ever shut my mouth in case such a thing would happen to me.

There's no excuse for the way the FA acted, but as someone commented on the blog, he should have chose his battles more carefully. The second exchange between him and the FA was wholly unnecessary and probably came off as a bit vindictive and condescending from her point of view. To me, it seems like he wanted the last word.

Common civility is gone from US air travel. People do not even say "please", "thank you" or even acknowledge you when you say "hi, welcome aboard." They just brush past you. Ask "would you care for a beverage" or "have you made your selection for dinner"and they won't even take off their headsets so they can hear the question, much less give the response. I always grin when someone says "Thank you for a great flight" and am truly puzzled when then very next passengers says "This was the worst flight ever." It's all about perception, I guess. I don't take it personally--in a few minutes I am walking off the big tube and never have to look at that person again.

I was raised to say "yes, ma'am" and "no, sir" from childhood as a matter of simple courtesy and to keep my feet off the furniture and walls. Trust me when I tell you that you will receive stellar inflight service from a crew when you treat them like fellow human beings and not like a service animal. Smile, use some eye contact, make a little small talk--we enjoy the interaction--in short, use the manners your mothers taught you, just like mine did.

I have never had a passenger complaint lodged against me in nearly 40 years, I have literally hundreds of commendations, crews really like to work with me because I have their backs and I get on the airplane in a great mood, ready to have a good time.

Being over 60 has allowed me to watch the younger generation develop a certain attitude. It's all about "ME!" There are many exceptions to that general statement. I simply cannot believe that another adult would say you don't have to say"yes, ma'am" as a matter of common decency in a public place or treat a lady with disrespect because you do not perceive her as your equal.

Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90